1. On 24 January 2001, the Appeals Chamber issued a
Scheduling Order in which it announced that the judgment on appeal in these proceedings
would be delivered on 20 February 2001.1 The hearing of oral
argument in relation to the appeal had concluded on 8 June 2000.

2. Six days after the Scheduling Order, on 30 January 2001, counsel for
Hazim Delic filed a motion for leave to file a supplement

ary brief in relation to
the appeal ("Motion"). The proposed supplementary brief ("Supplementary
Brief") was included with the Motion.2 The Supplementary
Brief discusses an article from the International Review of the Red Cross, which is
annexed to it.3 The article is a critical scholarly analysis
of the judgment of the Appeals Chamber of this Tribunal in The
Prosecutor v Tadic.4 The Motion notes that the
article discusses three issues  "the legal standard used to determine if a
conflict is an international armed conflict", the "interpretation of
international humanitarian law" and "the definition of protected
persons for purposes of Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to
Civilians"  which it states are relevant to the current appeal.5

3. The Appeals Chamber accepts that these issues, and the conclusions of
the Appeals Chamber in relation to these issues in the Tadic
Appeal Judgment, are relevant to grounds of appeal filed by Delic and the other
accused.6 These grounds of appeal and the issues they raise
have already been the subject of extensive written and oral submissions made by Delic and
the other accused, in their briefs and in the hearing of oral argument on the appeal held
from 5 to 8 June 2000. The Supplementary Brief refers to the analysis of the issues
in the article as supporting or "echo[ing]"7arguments
he has already made in these submissions.

4. As is evident from the Scheduling Order issued by the Appeals Chamber,
the judgment on the appeals in these proceedings is in the stages of finalisation. Only an
important new issue of substance or compelling new information relating to one of the
grounds of appeal could justify the grant of leave to file further supplementary
submissions at this extraordinarily late stage.

5. After considering the material supplied,
it is clear to the Appeals Chamber that the submissions in the Supplementary Brief add
nothing of substance at all to the submissions which have already been made. This is
effectively acknowledged by Delic in his Motion:

The supplemental brief makes no new arguments but simply shows that the
arguments made by Delic and his co-defendants are similar to those made by scholars in the
ICRC International Review and why the Appeals Chamber should give weight to this scholarly
article in deciding the issues before it.8

6. The fact that the views of two authors expressed in an academic forum
may support submissions already made by Delic is not a new matter of substance. Reference
to such scholarly writing, although in no way binding on the Appeals Chamber, may
in general be of assistance in its consideration of the issues before it. However it is
not new information of sufficiently compelling importance to justify the admission of an
additional brief at this extraordinarily late stage in the appellate proceedings. There is no unfairness to Delic in refusing leave
at this time to admit submissions based on a piece of academic writing which was published
in late September last year, and which in any case has been available to the Appeals
Chamber from public sources.

7. The Appeals Chamber therefore refuses leave to file the Supplementary
Brief and dismisses the Motion.

Done in English and French, the English version being authoritative.

Done this 1st day of February 2001
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

______________________________
Judge David Hunt
Presiding Judge

[Seal of the Tribunal]

1. Scheduling Order, 24 Jan 2001 ("Scheduling
Order").2. Appellant-Cross Appellee Hazim
Delics Motion for Leave to File Second Supplemental Brief and Supplemental Brief, 29
Jan 2001.3. Marco Sassi and Laura M Olsen, "The judgment of the ICTY Appeals
Chamber on the merits in the Tadic case, International Review of the Red Cross No
839, p 733-769; published on website of the International Committee of the Red Cross (www.icrc.org) with a publication date of
30 Sept 2000. The introductory paragraph article makes clear that the views
expressed are exclusively the views of the authors. The article is therefore not to be
considered as expressing the views of the International Committee of the Red Cross on the
Geneva Conventions.4.The Prosecutor v Tadic, Case No IT-94-1-A, Judgment, 15 July
1999 ("Tadic Appeal Judgment").5. Motion, pars 1(b) and 1(c).6. Delics eighth ground of appeal is Whether the Trial
Chamber erred in holding that the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina was an international
armed conflict at the times relevant to this indictment. Zdravko Mucic and Esad
Lando raise the same issue in their respective fifth grounds of appeal. Delics
fourth ground of appeal is Whether the Trial Chamber erred in holding that Bosnian
citizens of Serbian ethnicity should be treated as non-nationals of the Republic of Bosnia
and Herzegovina and were therefore protected persons as defined in Article 4 of Geneva
Convention IV. Zdravko Mucic and Esad Lando raise the same issue in their
fourth and sixth grounds of appeal respectively, and Zejnil Delalic raises the issue in
his third ground of contention.7. Supplementary Brief, par 10.8. Motion, par 1(c).